Ukraine Thread

[CrossLOPER]

People asked why the CIA et al failed to foresee this and I think the answer is actually as simple as it is sad - we have ceased to see war as a tool of statecraft.

So the expansion of NATO was not an extension of the containment policy used against the USSR, and was totally peaceful in its intentions?

Right, thanks for clearing that up.

Also, clearly a sliver of land is worth nuclear war.

[Husar]

Also, clearly a sliver of land is worth nuclear war.

I think most British people would rather die in a nuclear fire than let the Bolsheviks have Mariupol.

[Beskar]

I think most British people would rather die in a nuclear fire than let the Bolsheviks have Mariupol.

Only because you would give him Warsaw too, Neville.

[CrossLOPER]

Only because you would give him Warsaw too, Neville.

Yeah, kinda like Iraq, Syria, Lybia, Nigeria, Kenya and now Tunisia were given to IS and Egypt was given to an even more repressive dictator. What, do you want the next Witcher title that badly?

[Gilrandir]

Whether you understand how a modification can make them more lethal is irrelevant.

"Lethal" as an adjective doesn't have degrees of comparison. The same as "just", "right", "wooden", "silken" and many others.

I'm glad that you always have a better opinion than the experts on every subject. Surely some random guy from Ukraine must know this better than a reporter who deals with these political topics every day.

You can say use it as a reply to almost every post people send on the forum. The whole forum is about exprsessing one's own opinion on things, experts' opinions can be obtained elsewhere.

I think the same was believed in Europe - the politicians believed Putin would continue to negotiate and not deploy Spetnatz in Crimea, and then they didn't think he would escalate.

Why do you use the past tense? Europe still DOESN'T believe in any plans for escalation Putin might have. And after every advance made by the separatists in Donbas Europe lumps it saying to itself: "Well, this was definitely the last time."

I think most British people would rather die in a nuclear fire than let the Bolsheviks have Mariupol.

And you seem to have an opposite opinion: "Let the Bolsheviks have whatever they want as long as we don't see any nukes above our heads".
As it is often the way with things, there should be some sensible position and reaction by Europe which (i.e. the position) lies in the middle between the extremes.

[Brenus]

“the politicians believed Putin would continue to negotiate and not deploy Spetnatz in Crimea, and then they didn't think he would escalate.” I agree with the last part, but I disagree on the first one. They believed that Putin wouldn’t dare to escalate. Based on past experience, they observed rightly that each time Russia was backtracking and couldn’t really react. They believed that negotiation would take place and at the same time, the “pro-western” side would take the grip of power, and smoked by the deliberately slow negotiation, Putin (Russia) had no choice than the fait accompli.
The Georgian case showed that Russian army had enormous difficulties in deploying and to achieve even simple task.
Because Crimea was considered as Ukrainian, the prospect of an invasion from Russian’s borders was not really considered and even so the Ukrainian Army would have resisted any invasion. This was proved wrong. The use of Spetnatz was possible only because the locals were favourable to the invaders. Gilrandir will not agree, but this is a fact. No resistance at all was even tried, really.

“Tunisia” Not yet.

[Husar]

"Lethal" as an adjective doesn't have degrees of comparison. The same as "just", "right", "wooden", "silken" and many others.

How can someone or something be "most lethal" out of a group then?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...sniper-5088822
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...erican_battles
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02fvf9r

Wouldn't the most lethal thing be more lethal than the others?

You can say use it as a reply to almost every post people send on the forum. The whole forum is about exprsessing one's own opinion on things, experts' opinions can be obtained elsewhere.

I think you're wrong.

And you seem to have an opposite opinion: "Let the Bolsheviks have whatever they want as long as we don't see any nukes above our heads".
As it is often the way with things, there should be some sensible position and reaction by Europe which (i.e. the position) lies in the middle between the extremes.

Yes, how is demonizing Putin going to get us there? In my opinion all the Hitler-comparisons suggest that we can only stop him through all-out war, by bringing Russia to its knees and then making it bend over backwards. Your opinion on my opinion is wrong by the way.

[Montmorency]

So when's Episode 3 coming out?

[GenosseGeneral]

So when's Episode 3 coming out?

The producers haven't agreed on the plot yet, but there is a number of groups working on it. Ideas:

1) MOAR ESCALATION! MORE WAR, MORE SANCTIONS! IN 3D!!! This plot is favoured by NATO, hawks in Russia and the US, Ukrainian Nazis, those of their Russian counterparts fighting against them at the Donbass.
2) Majdan the Third. The Ukrainian people are so fed up with their new corrupt government, that they decide to bring another group of oligarchs into power. I suggest Pinchuk, Kuchma and Firtash.
3) Civil war of the oligarchs. The Ukrainian oligarchs, during the 90s also known as the Russian mafia, go back to their roots and use the mobilized volunteer battaillons to fight each other over the control of valuable assets. For instance Ukrtransnaftgaz. More on this innovative approach to keep things exciting:
http://korrespondent.net/special/168...-ukrtransnafty Unfortunately in Russian, but some of the pictures taken on set might give you an idea.
Kolomoyskiy and some of Poroshenko's followers are currently working on this episode.

[Montmorency]

The producers haven't agreed on the plot yet, but there is a number of groups working on it. Ideas:

1) MOAR ESCALATION! MORE WAR, MORE SANCTIONS! IN 3D!!! This plot is favoured by NATO, hawks in Russia and the US, Ukrainian Nazis, those of their Russian counterparts fighting against them at the Donbass.
2) Majdan the Third. The Ukrainian people are so fed up with their new corrupt government, that they decide to bring another group of oligarchs into power. I suggest Pinchuk, Kuchma and Firtash.
3) Civil war of the oligarchs. The Ukrainian oligarchs, during the 90s also known as the Russian mafia, go back to their roots and use the mobilized volunteer battaillons to fight each other over the control of valuable assets. For instance Ukrtransnaftgaz. More on this innovative approach to keep things exciting:
http://korrespondent.net/special/168...-ukrtransnafty Unfortunately in Russian, but some of the pictures taken on set might give you an idea.
Kolomoyskiy and some of Poroshenko's followers are currently working on this episode.

Sounds lame. I'll just get the videogame.

[CrossLOPER]

Why do you use the past tense? Europe still DOESN'T believe in any plans for escalation Putin might have. And after every advance made by the separatists in Donbas Europe lumps it saying to itself: "Well, this was definitely the last time."

Do you know something we don't?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So the expansion of NATO was not an extension of the containment policy used against the USSR, and was totally peaceful in its intentions?

Right, thanks for clearing that up.

You're welcome - from a European perspective "NATO" is a primarily defensive alliance, it's secondary function is to be a sort of club for militarily friendly nations who are also democracies. In fact in Europe NATO and the EU a less and less distinguishable.

You also have to ask, why did the Baltic Republics, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria... etc want to join NATO? The answer is that they fear Russian aggression, with historical justification. This fear is currently being realised in Ukraine, which did not join NATO.

Also, clearly a sliver of land is worth nuclear war.

It's more a belief that conventional war with Putin is inevitable, because he doesn't occupy our reality.

I think most British people would rather die in a nuclear fire than let the Bolsheviks have Mariupol.

See above - the long you wait the worse it will be - like an amputation - which lots of us will probably need once we've fought the Russians. I'm hoping to only lose a foot.

[Montmorency]

It's more a belief that conventional war with Putin is inevitable, because he doesn't occupy our reality.

Nah - Putin is, as you say, a fascist. He's posturing out of a position of weakness. The more he loses, the more he has to commit, or else its international humiliation, domestic privation, and potentially his own ouster.

[Husar]

You also have to ask, why did the Baltic Republics, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria... etc want to join NATO? The answer is that they fear Russian aggression, with historical justification. This fear is currently being realised in Ukraine, which did not join NATO.

Meh, why does half of South America and the Middle East hate the USA? Does that make the USA just as evil and aggressive or even more so?

It's more a belief that conventional war with Putin is inevitable, because he doesn't occupy our reality.

If he doesn't occupy our reality then war is not even necessary, but either way it is not inevitable.

See above - the long you wait the worse it will be - like an amputation - which lots of us will probably need once we've fought the Russians. I'm hoping to only lose a foot.

I don't intend to fight the Russians.
And there's a chance that you will just make a peaceful solution impossible by attacking right now. But apparently you have absolutely no doubt about your conclusions.

[Montmorency]

The problem is that Russia is in a bad position right now, so the US and Europe have to navigate carefully:

they don't want to empower Russia at their own expense and at the expense of their reputations, but neither do they want to cripple Russia or send it spiraling back into chaos.

That is why we have a simmering crisis in the Ukraine.

To be honest, the easiest way to resolve it would be for Western governments to privately pledge to Putin that they will support him against internal rivals.

Of course, if discovered, that would be a tremendous scandal, and the Tea Party would be looking to lynch Obama - literally.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Meh, why does half of South America and the Middle East hate the USA? Does that make the USA just as evil and aggressive or even more so?

Because America acted like a Tyrant to those countries? I mooted this when we were arguing over Libya, that a major reason for negative developments in those regions is the xternal tyranny of interally democratic countries.

I.e. If we are dicks to them they won't wants to be like us.

If he doesn't occupy our reality then war is not even necessary, but either way it is not inevitable.

A year ago I didn't think he'd annex Crimea, then he did. Going to war, actual war, would be insane but given that everything else he's done this year also seems insane to me I'm just following the pattern. Putin has shown that we have exactly two choices - war or let him have what he wants.

I don't intend to fight the Russians.
And there's a chance that you will just make a peaceful solution impossible by attacking right now. But apparently you have absolutely no doubt about your conclusions.

We won't be attacking - eventually Putin will attack something NATO troops are standing on. It's the "fight him over there or fight him here" gambit.

[Hax]

Everyone hates America until they get a green card.

[Montmorency]

Putin has shown that we have exactly two choices - war or let him have what he wants.

Trust me, everyone involved is looking for a convenient pretext to de-escalate. As I said, the problem lies in actually finding one before someone's population gets frenzied enough to force some "gambit".

[Husar]

Because America acted like a Tyrant to those countries? I mooted this when we were arguing over Libya, that a major reason for negative developments in those regions is the xternal tyranny of interally democratic countries.

I.e. If we are dicks to them they won't wants to be like us.

Yes.

A year ago I didn't think he'd annex Crimea, then he did. Going to war, actual war, would be insane but given that everything else he's done this year also seems insane to me I'm just following the pattern. Putin has shown that we have exactly two choices - war or let him have what he wants.

That still doesn't make anything inevitable, maybe I'd rather become a Russian than plop out of life in a nuclear explosion.
I'm sure that not subscribing to "better dead than red" makes me a horrible person, but we're not even close to such an option yet.

We won't be attacking - eventually Putin will attack something NATO troops are standing on. It's the "fight him over there or fight him here" gambit.

Don't you think he is going a bit slow if he wants to reach Paris during his lifetime?

Everyone hates America until they get a green card.

Oh man, I'd [do things] for a greencard!!!111

[Viking]

So the expansion of NATO was not an extension of the containment policy used against the USSR, and was totally peaceful in its intentions?

No, it must clearly have been with the intention to invade Russia and paint the Kremlin pink.

No resistance at all was even tried, really.

Erm.

[CrossLOPER]

No, it must clearly have been with the intention to invade Russia and paint the Kremlin pink.

Precisely.

[Brenus]

"Erm." Yeah, I know. Stalingrad was a battle for pussy cats...

[CrossLOPER]

Erm.

Why do they insist on butchering the pronunciation of Khruschev's name like that? It's not recognizable.